It seems to me that poetry does not always have to be about what humanity experiences as being pleasant and/or beautiful. It can also describe and/or render that which is disturbing and ugly to humanity.

Oh! Before I Forget ... !!!!!

"I Think therefore I Am!"
He Shouted Victoriously, Planting the Ego-Banner Firmly
In the Field of Consciousness,
Staking Out Its Claim
To Indubitably Certain Existence.

But a Wiser, Ancient, God-like Voice Replied:

"Behold, now, Arrogant One
The Horrific, Metaphysical Ego Cancellation!
Behold, How a Thoughtless Being is Possible!

"How Nothingness can Feel
As it Gradually,
Incrementally,
Dreadfully,
Chips Away at Your Cherished,
Seemingly Inviolable Memory of Self.

"Behold, now, Arrogant One,
As, Bit-by-Bit,
The Void Inexorably Encroaches Upon
And Consumes
Your Person
Your Self
Your Who
Your Ego
Your I

"Where, Oh Arrogant One,
Will You Be
After You Have Thoroughly
Misplaced Your Self?

"Will 'You' Be at All?
Will it be Your Who?
Whose Who Will be There Then,
As You Dumbly Stare Out into Empty Space?

"Amidst Your Aimless, Pointless Wanderings,
Will You Still be You Inside?
Who, or What, Will be There Then
To help you Remember Your
No-Longer-Recollected-Simply-Deleted-I?

"And if You, Oh Arrogant One,
Being Closest to and One with Your Self,
Can Forget Your Self,
Can Feel Your Self
Evaporate and Slip Away into Darkness,
Then, I Wonder,
How Much Could Your Self Have Been Worth in The First Place?

"And if, as They Claim, You are Created
In the Image and Likeness of Your God,
Then, Oh Arrogant One
Does This Mean that You
Are the Son
Of an Absent-Minded Deity,
A Deity Renowned above all Others for Forgetting Itself?

"That You Pray to The Magnificent Lord Alzheimer?"

I think poetry is primarily a form of art, rather than metaphysics. Using an economy of words, the poet enjoys painting vivid nuanced portraits of life one can experience, enjoy, identify with, and, if so inclined, try to contemplate the meaning of -- if any. Like musical compositions, I think poems portray and communicate the many different ways in which life can be lived and how those ways of living make one feel. Obviously, certain poets can do this better than others and with an economy of just the right words.

Words

Spirit chisels,
Sharp
Pointed
Full of power.

Cutting laser-like
Right into,
And passing through
The massive stubborn heart
Of muted being.

Gently,
Lovingly
Caressingly,
Sculpting all the while.

Creating
Myriad, meaningful, manifold forms
Of rational eloquence
From the otherwise dumb,
Dense core
Of silent being.

Is this Haiku, in your opinion, easier to deconstruct?

Demiurge

Imagination
Form giver to nothingness
Godlike in essence.

Or, is this non-Haiku even easier?

Final Harvest

Year after year
He plowed the earth
And planted seeds therein.
'Till, at the end,
They plowed the earth
And planted him therein.

Does the Haiku technique (economy of words and precision of meaning) somehow imply its own separate metaphysics?

The Hermit

Hermit greeting time
Out for a leisurely stroll
Walking stick in hand.

For all I know, the alleged "important stuff" may be "unimportant stuff." And it is perhaps for the latter reason, rather than for the former reason, that it is unsaid, or unsayable. By the way, what makes "stuff" important or unimportant anyway? Just being able to be said, rather than not being able to be said?

No problem.

OK, If it makes you feel better: Thanks for noticing my infamous "pleonasm."

However, I do think you're "splitting hairs" as they say and trying to create an issue where, in my humble opinion, there is none.

In no way was I intending to define ultimate reality, or to imply that I knew what it was, or that knowing what it is is something common, obvious, or self-evident. Quite the contrary.

Nevertheless, I do claim that many philosophers, throughout the ages, (arbitrarily using Hegel and Schopenhauer as examples, of which there are many others) thought otherwise and have, in fact, tried to explain what ultimate reality is and have come up with many different and unique definitions of it.

How, then, given your position, was it at all possible for so many philosophers to have tried to describe or explain ultimate reality throughout the ages? Each seemed to think they could do so. It was something, in fact, quite commonly discussed by them.

Hegel praised ultimate reality, while Schopenhauer condemned ultimate reality. Why? Because each characterized ultimate reality in diametrically opposed ways and each spelled out for humanity the diametrically opposed ethical implications and consequences that followed therefrom.

Was one correct and the other incorrect? Or were they both just highly sophisticated b.s. artists?

Nicely put!

However, despite the smokescreen of the ideological verbiage and symbolism of Communism, I still contend that the actual day-to-day Totalitarian social, cultural, and economic practices implemented by the Chinese leadership is no different than that which defined Totalitarian Fascist or National Socialist states.

National Socialist states also minimized (or even obliterated) political independence, also mandated strict unity (One Nation, One People, One Leader), and also claimed one superior national ethnicity (the Nordic) to the severe detriment of other so-called inferior ethnicities. Just look at what the Mandarin Chinese are doing to the Uighurs!

Let the oligarchic-plutocrats call it what they will, in practice, it is still a totalitarian national socialist capitalist state.

Nice nuanced analysis.

Fundamentally, I think we are on the same page.

However, I do not think the Chinese leaders really believe in pursuing an "international Communist revolution," or in bringing about a "dictatorship of the proletariat."

Nor do I think that they really consider their brand of National Socialism to be in any way merely a "transitional" phenomenon, a la Lenin.

All such theoretical-ideological phraseology about ultimately transitioning to true Communism as a noble end sounds good for purposes of public and international consumption.

Internally, China is and will steadfastly seek to remain a rigid Totalitarian National Socialist regime.

What they really want to transition to is no different than what Fascist Italy and National Socialist Germany wanted to "transition" to; viz., world domination.

In a constitutional republic who should get to differentiate truths from lies?

Should persons be appointed who possess unique abilities or special knowledge that qualify them to do this?

Or, are there no such persons qualified to do this, because they simply do not exist?

So then, why not publish everything, why not let it all be said or written, whether we agree with it or not, whether we think it might be hurtful to some, or not, whether we think it is true or not, and let the citizens debate and judge for themselves.

As I understand it, according to Hegel, nature and humanity are the self-alienation of God and a dialectical process is occurring whereby, ultimately, God is able to recognize and re-integrate his alienated nature in and through the self-consciousness of humanity. Also, this entire process is logical, not temporal. It goes through what are called logical moments.

Question: Why is the divine nature alienated from itself in the first place? Perhaps, as Ludwig Feuerbach claimed, it is humanity's nature, rather than the divine nature, that is alienated from itself.

This latter insight, in a reworked form, became a basic principle of the left-wing Hegelians and, ultimately, of Marxism.

Our Constitution and Bill of Rights recognize precisely that this is NOT a perfect world. That's the exact reason why both exist, viz., to try to specify precisely what must be protected from being infringed upon, or even cancelled by, totalitarian regimes of the left or the right.

As the saying goes: "I may disagree with what you say, but I will respectfully refrain from insulting or otherwise demeaning your character or belittling your intellect and protect, to the very end, your right to say it."

If this, in your opinion is a form of ranting, or not knowing what I am talking about, then so be it.

Quite frankly, I think you are a very rude person who resorts to ad hominem arguments when frustrated. How meanspirited to refer to me or anyone else as a dog. I made my point and don't need your approval.

Example of a new form of logic. It's called Democratic logic.

For the same enlightened reason that Kamala Harris did. Because it was Trump who facilitated development of the vaccine(s) and recommended taking them.

Sorry Mww! My "I beg to disagree" was actually meant to only address Gregory's concerns about noumena. I didn't mean for you to be referenced.

There are two different meanings that can be given to the phrase "outside the mind" when used in the context of Kant's CPR. Let me try to explain.

The human mind can be said to create a three-dimensional space WITHIN ITSELF wherein it can project and visualize the phenomenal objects of sensible intuition. Such a space "appears" to be outside the mind, but it and the phenomenal objects it contains always remain wholly within the mind. It and its objects are transcendental, not transcendent.

The human mind also tries to conceive of a space located completely outside of itself. Such an impossible space, if it existed, and whatever existed in it, would be wholly outside the mind. It, and whatever existed in it, would be transcendent, not transcendental; the purported realm of noumena or things-in-themselves.

[reply="Gregory;566

I beg to disagree. Also, in this regard, read Schopenhauer's Criticism of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Focus especially on Schopenhauer's criticism of Kant's confusing use of terminology.

By definition, a phenomenal object of empirical intuition must exhibit spatio-temporal (transcendental) characteristics (be determined by the forms of human sensibility) in order for it to be both phenomenal and objective.

By definition, a non-phenomenal object of empirical intuition, does not exhibit spatio-temporal (transcendental) characteristics (is undetermined by the forms of human sensibility) and, therefore, is neither phenomenal, nor objective.

Question: Does a Platonic Idea become a phenomenal object of empirical intuition (get instantiated, as they say) only after it is determined (processed) by the spatio-temporal forms of human sensibility?

Cause, or Cause and Effect, is one of Kant's Categories of the Understanding. Kant asserted there were twelve such categories.

Stage I

Phenomenal objects, by their very definition, i.e., as phenomenal, must first be experienced in a spatio-temporal context contributed to them with necessity and strict universality by human sensibility. If a phenomenal object is not situated in this necessary and strictly universal spatio-temporal context, then it is impossible for it to be intuited by the senses; i.e., it cannot be sensed.

Stage II

The above having been accomplished, the sensed phenomenal object, in order to also be a phenomenal object known by the understanding, must undergo several syntheses accomplished by the categories of the human understanding, each of which is also necessary and strictly universal.

Space and Time, the Forms of Sensible Intuition, and the Categories of the Understanding.

Is this another way of rendering what you are saying, or claiming?

God can be defined as a necessary personal being.

A personal being can be defined as necessary only if it can be demonstrated to be true that it exists in every possible world.

But if it can be demonstrated that there is a possible world in which god does not exist, then God cannot be defined as a necessary personal being.

My further comments will depend upon your response.

I think you mean transcendent.

For example, the Idea or Form of an Elm Tree or of a Tiger has nothing absolutely necessary or strictly universal about it. As species, their existence is just as possible as their non-existence. Also, both Ideas/Forms do not apply to all phenomenal entities without exception. For this reason, they are empirical, not transcendental. They are not products of our minds.

The human mind only encounters phenomenal objects and, retroactively, it ASSUMES that it contributes to them those characteristics which are necessary and strictly universal.

By the way, are Plato's Forms/Ideas transcendental or empirical?

Then why didn't you say so??

The human mind does not bestow all upon the noumena because it is impossible for the human mind to step outside of itself to see itself doing this.

If a characteristic of phenomenal objects exhibits ABSOLUTE NECESSITY and STRICT UNIVERSALITY, then that characteristic is transcendental.

A transcendental characteristic MUST be exhibited by ALL phenomenal objects with no exceptions, because the human mind, which is the original source of the transcendental characteristic, must bestow it upon all phenomenal objects in the very process of knowing them.

If a characteristic of phenomenal objects exhibits only LIMITED NECESSITY and RESTRICTED UNIVERSALITY, then that characteristic is empirical.

An empirical characteristic is exhibited by only SOME phenomenal objects, but not others. The human mind is not the source of the empirical characteristic and it does not bestow the empirical characteristic upon any phenomenal objects.

I always create an existential relation between myself and the "I" of the Cartesian "I think, I exist" whenever, and while, I am performing the thought-act "I think. I exist" in the first person, present tense mode. Furthermore, my "I think, I exist" performance is always existentially consistent and, therefore, existentially self-verifying. And whenever I try to perform its negation "I am not thinking, I am not existing" in the first person, present tense mode, it always turns out to be existentially inconsistent and, therefore, existentially self-defeating, i.e., impossible.

By contrast, I cannot create an existential relation between myself and the I of the Cartesian inferential proposition "I think, therefore I exist" because the inferential proposition provides nothing more than an objective written version or representation of my original subjective performance or thought-act. And because I cannot create an existential relation between myself and the I of the inferential proposition, the fundamental notions of existential consistency and existential self-verification are neither applicable, nor relevant, to the inferential proposition. Only the notion of logical validity is applicable and relevant to the inferential proposition.

The Cogito Sum inferential proposition can be interpreted to be a derivative rendition of my original Cogito Sum performance because the objective logical truths expressed in writing by the Cogito Sum proposition are ultimately dependent upon and derived from the more primordial existentially consistent and existentially self-verifying truths that result from my subjective Cogito Sum performance.

It is the existentially consistent and existentially self-verifying truths resulting from my Cogito Sum performance which provide the necessary and sufficient ontological pre-conditions that support the existence of the objective logical truths that are expressed in written form by the Cogito Sum inferential proposition.

Because the existence of the Cogito Sum inferential proposition is dependent on the Cogito Sum performance, this explains why modus ponens is applicable to the Cogito Sum and why the Cogito Sum appears to involve both a valid inference regarding the truth of my existence and a more primordial performance-based existentially consistent and existentially self-verifying intuition of the truth of my existence.

I submit that this is precisely what Descartes meant when he stated, "When someone says 'I am thinking, therefore I am, or I exist,' he does not deduce existence from thought by means of a syllogism, but recognizes it as something self-evident by a simple intuition of the mind."

So, for the above reasons, I submit that if someone is going to attempt to really critique the truth of the Cogito, they should focus their efforts on the Cogito Sum as a performance, not on the Cogito, ergo Sum as an inferential proposition.

A serious critic of the indubitable certainty of the truth of the Cogito Sum performance, who hoped to be successful, would have to come up with a hyperbolic doubt that can neutralize or nullify the existential consistency and existential self-verification of the truth of the Cogito Sum performance when and while it is occurring in the mind of the meditator in the first person, present tense mode.

Descartes wasn't concerned with undermining arithmetic truth. He was, in fact, a pioneering mathematician who extended the nature and scope of such truth.

But he did try to ascertain if there was a kind of truth, unlike arithmetic truth, that could survive the test of hyperbolic (unreasonable) doubt. The kind of truth that would be valid in all possible worlds.

He claimed to have found this kind of truth in his own and in each person's Cogito Sum performance.
In other words, if, when, and while I am thinking in the first person present tense mode, in all possible worlds I must be existing.

In all possible worlds, my Cogito Sum performance will be existentially consistent and, therefore, existentially self-verifying.

Prior to the advent of non-Euclidean geometries, couldn't it have been claimed, with all sincerity, that there was no possible world wherein, or no conceivable circumstances whereby, two parallel lines would intersect, as this would have "obviously" constituted a blatant violation of Euclid's parallel postulate?

And didn't the machinations of Descartes' evil genius comprise a hyperbolic situation whereby a possible world is conceived wherein the meditator is constantly being deceived into thinking that 2+3 can, and does, equal 6?

How do you distinguish a possible from an impossible world?

Yes, true! The ending of the self or ego is a synonym for the attainment of oblivion in any culture. Just another case of those culturally biased European geniuses. I suppose the Gnostic ascetics shared the same bias.

I think Schopenhauer saw Christianity as a holding on to life instead of a letting go towards death. — Gregory

Schopenhauer subscribed to the Judeo-Christian value system because it promoted the DENIAL, rather than the AFFIRMATION, of the WILL-to-LIVE. The highest form of concretely practicing this denial was Christian ASCETICISM. The ultimate goal of ascetic practices was the attainment of NOTHINGNESS. This constituted SALVATION for Schopenhauer. In this sense, Schopenhauer was a NIHILIST.

What's really inconsistent to me is how Schopenhauer can vehemently reject the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, the source of the Judeo-Christian value system, while seeing no need to replace that value system with another.

Actually, I had Sartre in mind when I asked this question. Specifically, his explanation of how Being-for-Itself constantly issues from Being-in-Itself through a process of nihilation.

Ultimate Being, for Schopenhauer, had nothing to do with the evolution of a transcendent Reason, or Idea, via a dialectical (thesis, antithesis, synthesis) process reaching ever higher levels of rational perfection throughout human history and culture. For Hegel, Being was Rationality.

For Schopenhauer, ultimate Being was a non-rational, purposeless, blind Will-to-Live that manifested itself throughout the several ascending levels of inanimate and animate nature until it reached its highest manifestation, and achieved full self-awareness through representation in human consciousness.

At this point, human beings had a choice. They could either continue to affirm, or decide to deny, this Will-to-Live which constituted their essential nature.